OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/21097/720p_HD_Video_with_the_Kodak_Z1485_IS
Exploring the Future of Computingen-usCopyright 2001-2015, David Adamsadam+nospam@osnews.comTue, 03 Mar 2015 19:49:47 GMThttp://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gifOSNews.comhttp://www.osnews.com
So what?http://www.osnews.com/thread?352078
http://www.osnews.com/thread?352078This is nothing special really. If you want a compact camera with HD movie capabilities, rather go for the Panasonic DMC TZ5. It's been out for ages, it has a 10x optical zoom, a quality lens from Leica and IS.

The megapixels don't mean a thing when you have a tiny sensor anyway.Sat, 07 Mar 2009 09:23:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fonebone)CommentsRE: So what?http://www.osnews.com/thread?352081
http://www.osnews.com/thread?352081Oh, I agree. But the TZ5 is also an extra $100. It's all about the right product for the right price, not what's best in general. Cause then, the Canon 5D MarkII is even better than the TZ5 anyway. ;-)Edited 2009-03-07 09:29 UTCSat, 07 Mar 2009 09:28:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Eugenia)CommentsRE[2]: So what?http://www.osnews.com/thread?352083
http://www.osnews.com/thread?352083Sure, but that's not really a fair comparison. The Canon costs thousands of dollars more, while the Kodak and the Panasonic are aimed at the same market.Edited 2009-03-07 09:39 UTCSat, 07 Mar 2009 09:31:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fonebone)CommentsRE[3]: So what?http://www.osnews.com/thread?352088
http://www.osnews.com/thread?352088Almost same market. The price is not as close as you think it is. I know people who don't have the extra $100 to pay for a higher up model as the TZ5 is. Maybe 100 bucks for you is not a big deal, but for some it is.Sat, 07 Mar 2009 10:15:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Eugenia)CommentsRE[2]: So what?http://www.osnews.com/thread?352090
http://www.osnews.com/thread?352090Do you happen to know if the TZ5 has any other options than continuous auto-focus when filming? That would be a big plus for the extra 100$Edited 2009-03-07 10:24 UTCSat, 07 Mar 2009 10:22:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (pandronic)CommentsRE[3]: So what?http://www.osnews.com/thread?352091
http://www.osnews.com/thread?352091I believe it has a tele/macro/auto mode, but I can't be sure for this model exactly. What I know that it has for sure over this Kodak one is exposure locking and compensation (talking about video mode, always). Additionally, the quality is better as the Panasonics record in MJPEG at 25mbps rather than MPEG4-SP at 12 mbps.

However, if I were to go for a digicam that shoots good HD video for less than $350, my actual suggestions would be either the Panasonic FX150 (also supports 24p which I personally prefer for some things), or the new Canon SX200. More info in the two pages here: http://www.hv20.com/showthread.php?p=181306#post181306 Edited 2009-03-07 10:33 UTCSat, 07 Mar 2009 10:25:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Eugenia)Commentshmhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?352094
http://www.osnews.com/thread?352094mh, quality of the images is really poor. looks like upscaled.Sat, 07 Mar 2009 11:18:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (SK8T)CommentsStill waitinghttp://www.osnews.com/thread?352099
http://www.osnews.com/thread?352099I'm still waiting for a sub $1000 harddisk based camcorder that will do progressive HD. All the ones in that range so far have been interlaced. It has been interesting to see many of the still cameras begin to get this technology but unfortunately it's not too useful with the limited storage capacity of the flash memory.Sat, 07 Mar 2009 13:08:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (CodeMonkey)CommentsRE[4]: So what?http://www.osnews.com/thread?352104
http://www.osnews.com/thread?352104The new SX200 looks quite appealing: 1080x720 at 30fps, 12x optical zoom and a lot more: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SX200IS/SX200ISDAT.HTM

Given the fact that they are in the same price range, the Canon looks like a no-brainer. Am I missing something?Sat, 07 Mar 2009 14:51:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (pandronic)CommentsRE[5]: So what?http://www.osnews.com/thread?352130
http://www.osnews.com/thread?352130The FX150 is a better deal if you are after the movie look because it does 24p. Also, it displays way faster than h.264 while editing, so if you are on a PC, it's the best idea compared to the SX200. More over, it has a bigger sensor, so it is better on low light and it has more background blur, adding to that movie look that some of us are after. So don't discount the FX150 just yet.Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:29:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Eugenia)CommentsRE: Still waitinghttp://www.osnews.com/thread?352131
http://www.osnews.com/thread?352131ALL of Canon's HD cameras do PF30, which is 30p in a 60i wrapper. If you are using iMovie, or Sony Vegas, you can easily discard one of the two fields and be left with a perfectly progressive (not interpolated or blended) image. The HG20 and HG21 are also hard drive based as you want, so that's the camera you want I guess. If you are after 60p instead, there's a new Sanyo Xacti flash-based one that does that.Edited 2009-03-07 20:31 UTCSat, 07 Mar 2009 20:30:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Eugenia)Comments